ON THE UTTER NEGLECT OF THE
EYESIGHT QUESTION IN BOARD
OF TRADE ENQUIRIES INTO

SHIPPING DISASTERS.

% 30 JAW i: /.£,

—

V"

A Criticism of the President of the Board
of Trade’s reply (Feb. ist, 1895) to
the Deputation of Ophthalmic
Specialists by

T. H. BICKERTON,

Ophthalmic Surgeon, Liverpool Royal
Infirmary.

Read (Aug. 2nd, 1895) in the Section of
Ophthalmology at the Annual Meeting
of the British Medical Association,
held in London.

Although the public memory is notoriously
short, it will hardly be forgotten that on the 1st
of February last a deputation from the British
Medical Association and the Ophthalmological
Society, waited upon Mr. Bryce, who then
occupied the position of President of the Board
of Trade, to urge the adoption of more precise

tests for the eyesight in the examination of the
mercantile marine and railway employees.

It is no compliment to the gentlemen who
formed that deputation, or to the carefully
prepared case which they laid before the Board
of Trade, that the visual test question is precisely
in the same position as it was then. Possibly
the President of that overburdened department
of Government — the Board of Trade — thought
that he was doing well by the deputation when
he gave it courteous hearing, and that nothing
further would result from his neglect to take
action upon this important matter. In fact,
Mr. Bryce in his reply to the unanswerable
arguments brought to his notice seemed to
resent the mere suggestion that the Board of
Trade had not pursued the most enlightened
policy possible in dealing with the question of
Sailors’ Eyesight.

It may, perhaps, seem a little ungracious to
criticise that reply at the present juncture ;
earlier action, however, on our part would have
constituted a breach of the unwritten law of
etiquette in such matters. It was promised us
that the subject should receive careful consider-
ation, and, as the wheels of officialdom run
proverbially slow, a policy of passive waiting,
in the hope that the result of this promised
“consideration” would ultimately be vouchsafed,
was practically the only line of action open to
us. Mr. Bryce, too, it should be remembered,
merely voiced the opinion of the permanent
officials of the Board of Trade, and it is against
their policy of inertia that my criticisms are
directed, rather than at the statesman who was
then their head and mouthpiece. Mr. Bryce

3

asserted that his “department had shown due
diligence in dealing with the matter.”

At this stage of the colour-vision and eyesight
question it is perhaps unnecessary to expose
the utter impudence and presumption of such a
claim. It is well known that the “diligence”
of the department, to which is entrusted the safe-
guarding of the travelling community by land
or sea has manifested itself, first in refusing to
admit the danger of the colour-blind factor,
and subsequently, when compelled by facts to
abandon this untenable position, in stubbornly
resisting any effort which sought to eliminate
visually afflicted persons from serving on our
railways or in our mercantile marine.

The action of the Medical Profession in
persistently pointing out the dangers arising
from visual defect, and suggesting the adoption
of remedial measures, has been until quite recent
times regarded in the light of mere faddism ;
and so long as discussions and recommendations
were confined to the Medical Press, the subject
was a closed book to the public, and the Board
of Trade treated the views of those competent
to give an opinion with undisguised contempt.
That the rights of the case were unknown to the
public may be gathered from the fact, that
though the dangers of employing colour-blind
men as sailors were first pointed out in 1855, a
leading daily paper stated in 1888 that “too
much fuss is made about the supposed de-
ficiency.” For such a statement the public press
may rightly plead ignorance. But no such plea
can be put forward by the Board of Trade.
They were well aware of the researches of Dr.
Wilson (Edinburgh), whose work on “Colour-

4

Blindness,” published in 1855, will ever be a
living monument to his labours ; and they knew
well of the efforts of Dr. Jabez Hogg — to
whose admirable exertions I believe we owe the
first Parliamentary Return on “Colour Vision” ;
— of Mr. Brudenell Carter, of Cantor Lecture
fame; of Dr. Brailey (London); and last, but
not least, of Dr. Joy Jeffries, of Boston, U.S. A.,
whose work on “Colour Blindness” has done
more than any other to point out to the English
speaking people, its dangers and detection.

But to all advice the Board of Trade turned
a deaf ear, and I believe it was not until I
enlisted Dr. Farquharson’s assistance to direct
Parliamentary attention to the question, that
the public began to be awakened to a due sense
of the needless peril to which sea-goers were
subjected from visually afflicted sailors, and the
Board of Trade to see that they had the public
and not the Medical Profession only to deal with.
For when once the vital importance of the
matter was pointed out to the General and
Shipping Press, their voice has not ceased to
make itself heard in the cause, and it has done
incalculable good towards educating the nation
to understand aright the risk which must ever
accrue to lives and shipping property from
colour-blind and defective-sighted officers and
look-outs.

As far back as December, 1877, Dr. Caldwell,
Surgeon on board the historic Cunarder “Russia,”
wrote to the “Nautical Magazine” as follows : —

(1) “I hold that the quality of eyesight that
was good enough to steer clear of the old
sailing packet, is by no means adequate
to recognise surely and promptly the

5

lights of the modern steamer, where the
time for reflection is often limited to
seconds.”

(2) “That more collisions occur through
mistaking coloured sidelights than almost
all other causes combined.”

The truth of the first statement, Dr. Caldwell
goes on to remark, “is almost self evident, and
will be conceded when one considers the in-
creasing rate of speed as compared with the
more leisurely progress of the days when steam
was unknown. The history of accidents from
collision, and the conflicting evidence with
reference to the bearings of coloured lights, as
exemplified in our law courts, will, I think,
sustain the latter statement.”

So wrote Dr. Caldwell close upon twenty
years ago, and it speaks volumes for the “dili-
gence” which the Board of Trade has exercised
over this subject that we, in the present year of
grace, should still be urging the adoption of
remedial measures to safeguard the public from
dangers which were so pertinently indicated so
far back as 1876.

Apparently the Board of Trade take credit
to themselves concerning the Royal Society’s
enquiry into the colour vision question. It is
well known, however, that it was only after
steady pressure, long continued, that such a step
was practically forced upon the Board of Trade.
The enquiry was a costly one, and its findings
were quite in accord with the latest scientific
teachings. But the Board of Trade, if we
except their adoption of the Holmgren wool test,
have done but little towards adopting the Royal
Society’s recommendations. Their action in

6

thus seeking advice, and then failing to act upon
it, is clearly evidential that the enquiry was
wrung from them with the greatest reluctance.
They were practically compelled by the influence
of public opinion to order it, and their subsequent
neglect of its suggestions lays the Board of
Trade open to the very serious charge of re-
garding the commission in the nature of a sop
which the united forces of the medical profession
and the press compelled them to throw to the
Cerberus of public opinion.

The official position on the subject of colour-
blindness and its risks is the illogical one which
assumes the absence of risk, because among the
direct causes of collision definite cases of the
disaster being due to colour-blindness or to
defective eyesight do not largely figure.

“ It was certainly very remarkable,” said
Mr. Bryce, “that an exceedingly small number
of accidents, he might almost say, few or no
accidents, at sea or on land had been so far
traceable to this cause. He had, for some
months past, carefully perused the reports of
the courts of enquiry, and he had made most
careful enquiries of the heads of the railway and
marine departments, and had been assured that
in scarcely any case had it been suggested, or so
far as they knew could it be suggested, that
defects of vision had been the cause of accidents.”

This is the buttress behind which officialdom
shelters itself. The Board of Trade requires
that death and disaster shall first take place
before they will take the necessary steps to
eliminate colour-blind and defective far-sighted
subjects from occupying responsible positions on
the decks and bridges of our merchant vessels.

7

Mr. Bryce, instead of perusing the reports he
alludes to for months, might do so for years —
for a lifetime in fact — and not find a single case
in which the court finds that a vessel has been
lost through the defective sight of some member
of its or another vessel’s crew. But, if Mr.
Bryce will deign to peruse the reports in
question with an impartial mind, first dis-
missing the official view that the risk from
colour-blindness and defective vision is a mere
bogey, raised by the medical profession and
believed in by the press, he will have but little
difficulty in learning that many collisions
occurring at sea by night are of an altogether
unaccountable character. The atmosphere may
be clear, the respective look-outs alert, so that
the approaching vessels are duly signalled and
reported before the danger point is reached.
In spite of this, collision occurs. Through
what cause? The Board of Trade maintain
the cause may be anything save and except
colour-blindness or defective sight. The pre-
conceived official view on that visual defect
quite precludes any suspicion that the disaster
was due to such a factor. Common sense
would say, why in such cases is not the eyesight
of the survivors of such catastrophes tested ?
Why, too, in cases where there is a glaring
contradiction on matters of fact respecting the
position of converging vessels, as manifested by
their sidelights, does not the court insist upon
the eyesight of the witnesses being tested ? If
such steps were taken I venture to assert that
many an inexplicable disaster would be solved,
and many an apparent case of wilful perjury
would be explained.

I challenge Mr. Bryce and the Board of
Trade to point to one single case out of the
many thousands that have occurred, where, after
collision, the Board have ordered an examina-
tion of the eyesight of the surviving officers and
look-outs, and I submit that Mr. Bryce’s mis-
leading— not to use a stronger adjective — reply,
was not of the kind to be expected from the
responsible minister of a great public department.
Rightly or wrongly, I felt at the time that, his
reply was an evasion of the positive evidence
laid before him, and was directed towards screen-
ing the permanent officials from the charge of
apathy and negligence. Unquestionably it
deceived — with a few notable exceptions — the
public press, and not for the first time was the
public gulled into a false feeling of security.
Little did I think, such a striking proof of their
negligence and incapacity would be so soon
forthcoming.

It might have been thought that the some-
what inexplicable cause of the “Elbe” and
“ Crathie ” disaster would have suggested to the
Board of Trade officials the advisability of testing
the eyesight and colour sense of the “Crathie’s ”
look-out men. Apart, however, from the utter
improbability of themselves deeming it advisable
to sift this phase of the question, they even
refused to do so when asked.

Thinking that in such a lamentable catas-
trophe as this, no stone should be left unturned
in the endeavour to trace to its true source the
cause of the disaster, I wrote to the Board of
Trade while their enquiry was pending, suggest-
ing the desirability of examining the eyesight

9

and colour sense of such of the “Crathie’s” crew
as were on deck at the time of the casualty.

In response to my letter, I received from the
Board of Trade an autograph communication of
which the following is a copy : —

Board of Trade, Whitehall Gardens, S. W.,

May 20th, 1895.

Dear Sir,

I am directed by Mr. Bryce to acknowledge receipt of
your letter of yesterday’s date, and to state in reply that the
question of the powers of vision will be carefully borne in mind
in the Board of Trade enquiry into the cause of the collision
between the “Elbe” and “ Crathie.”

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) Garnham Roper.

A perusal of the above letter clearly conveys
the impression that the Board of Trade intended,
or rather stated their intention, of examining
the eyesight of the “Crathie’s” look-outs. The
enquiry, however, was duly held as announced,
but the question of defective sight not being
mentioned in the full reports appearing in the
“Times,” I therefore wrote again to the Board
of Trade asking for a definite statement of fact
as to whether these look-outs had actually been
examined or no. In reply I was honoured with
the accompanying : —

Board of Trade Marine Department,

7, Whitehall Gardens, June 26 th, 1895.

Sir,

With reference to your letter of the 19th inst., asking
whether the look-outs of the “Crathie” were examined as to
their eyesight, and where you can obtain a copy of the evidence
taken, I am directed by the Board of Trade to state that the
witnesses were not examined as to their eyesight, and that

the evidence of both sides showed that colour-blindness had
nothing to do with the cause of the collision.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Signed) Ingram B. Walker.

Colour-blindness or defective vision may or
may not have had something to do with the
disaster. But I maintain most emphatically that
considering the awful nature of the catastrophe,
and the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence
forthcoming, that the Board of Trade should
have tested the eyesight of the “ Crathie’s ”
look-outs, and that, in the face of these letters,
their failure to do so constitutes a most serious
dereliction of duty, and one which imperatively
calls for Parliamentary action.

So much for Board of Trade persistency in
escaping by any and every loophole from admit-
ting that defective sight or colour vision may
be productive of maritime disaster.

A few words now on the subject of the Board
of Trade’s present regulations as to the proper
time when the tests for colour-blindness or
defective sight should be applied. Instead of
being enforced before the articles of indentures
are signed — and this is the proper moment — -
the tests only become compulsory on a candidate
applying for a certificate of mate. They are thus
only applied after a tedious apprenticeship has
been completed, and when the candidate has,
by following the sea, unfitted himself for success
in other walks of life. What are the rejected
ones to do ? Stay on shore and starve or go to
sea ? The public have an idea that the Board
of Trade tests eliminate the visually imper-

feet from our Mercantile Marine. But is that
so ? The following letter shows that the only
course open to the rejected is to go to sea,
colour-blindness or defective sight notwith-
standing.

It is the letter of a hardworking, sober, and
industrious young fellow, a life-long total ab-
stainer, one who would under kinder circum-
stances have become an ornament to his
profession.

Failing, after being rejected for colour-
blindness, to get a berth on shore, even at the
paltry pittance of one pound per week, he was
literally compelled to go to sea as an A.B. at a
wage of ^3 ios. per month. But let him state
his own case : —

“ I signed my indentures on 28th December, 1887, to Mr.
S. J., Liverpool, for four years. I joined my ship at Cardiff,
1st January, 1888, and finished my term of apprenticeship.
I was also nine months over my time in the same vessel as
A.B. On arriving home I went to school to coach for second
mate. I put in my papers 14th October, 1892 (Friday) and
was told I was colour-blind. At the advice of my late Captain
I took a short trip up the Mediterranean in a steamer belonging
to Messrs L. (the voyage occupying a month). Again my
sight was tested and was failed in the “greens,” but was told
my sight in other colours was perfect. There was no hope for
me to pass my examination, but at the same time there was
nothing to prevent me going before the mast. I went away

then in one of the Company’s Royal Mail

Steamers in which I have been seven voyages to S .
During these voyages I have never had any complaints as to
my ability to keep a proper look-out. This I did in a fast
steamer for over two years. In conclusion I may state that
my only prospect now is to continue as A.B. for the rest of my
days.

(Signed) E. B. W.

By the courtesy of J. Clark Hall, Esq.,
Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen, I

hold in my hands the returns of those men failing"
to comply with the colour-blind and eyesight
tests, from September ist, 1894 — when the new
tests came into force — to July 25th, 1895. The
numbers are truly appalling. No less than
76 failed on account of colour-blindness, and 89
for defective sight. Think for a few moments
of what this means! Who can form the faintest
conception of the depth of blank despair into
which these poor fellows are plunged in an
instant — victims of the crass ignorance, pride,
and hardness of heart of gentlemen who,
whatever they may be in private life, exhibit
in their public capacity a callousness which
cannot be surpassed, if paralleled throughout
the length and breadth of the land. I have
seen men, strong in the pride of manhood,
men who would face any danger, and who are
a credit to any nation, utterly broken down on
hearing that their positions and livelihood —
secure at one moment — are, through no fault
of their own, swept away at the next.

For many years past we have told the Board
of Trade that their adoption of imperfect tests
and regulations has, by permitting the entry of
colour-blinds into the service, constituted a seri-
ous double offence. By such laxity, not only
have incompetent men been foisted upon the
public as competent ones, but the inhuman pro-
cedure has been followed of granting certificates
of competency which, on the introduction of
reliable tests, would be rendered valueless to the
possessor, and would consequently entail loss of
occupation, or, in other words, ruin.

This constitutes a serious blot on the fail-
fame of our Government. We have recently

I3

witnessed the effect of an attempt to despoil the
Church of her own, and have observed the
result of an effort to deprive the publican of his
license without compensation. These bodies,
however, being rich and powerful, have resisted
the attempt, and the public voice has upheld
their objection. But infinitely harder and more
pitiable is the lot of the colour-blind officer. He
has neither riches, influence, nor even a Parlia-
mentary vote at his command ; no redress is
open to him — his only course is to quietly sub-
mit without even an opportunity of protest, and
he is consequently plunged into the depths of
despair.

The present Government has a clean page
before it. Humanity demands, and a sense of
right dictates, that these poor men be not cast
adrift. Their names and addresses are known
to the Board of Trade. Let Government see
that, at the earliest opportunity, shore berths
in Government Offices be offered to them, and
thus in some measure they may be compensated
for that loss of position and means of livelihood
which, through no fault of their own, has un-
fortunately fallen to their lot.

If I am thought to be exaggerating the
distress entailed, the recital of the following
cases will carry conviction, where, perhaps, my
mere statements would fail.

I have already recorded the case of Captain
Smith who, after being at sea for 20 years, and
in the possession of a Board of Trade’s Master’s
Certificate, was accidentally found to be colour-
blind and was dismissed his ship. The ruin of
his hopes and home (he was married and had
three children) so preyed upon his mind that,

14

though up to that time he had never had a day’s
illness, nor consulted a doctor, his health gradu-
ally gave way, and his death occurred in a little
over twelve months after his dismissal.

A still more distressing illustration is to
be found in the case of Captain F., who in
April, 1895, was discovered, also accidentally,
to be colour-blind. A quotation from a letter
received from the House Surgeon of the
institution in which he was an inmate, as a
result of attempted suicide, will best describe
his condition. “ Early in this year the patient’s
certificate was endorsed ‘ Colour Blind,’ in
consequence of which he has been thrown
out of employment. This has preyed upon his
mind. He became sleepless and unsettled, and
eventually tried to do away with himself by
leaping into one of the docks. During his stay
in hospital he was observed to be very melan-
cholic, apparently taking no interest in his sur-
roundings, and quite hopeless as to his future.”

The bitter pathos of despair embodied in the
above illustrations would be hard to parallel.
Humanity and justice alike ask why the Board
of Trade do not institute their tests so as to
preclude a colour-blind or weak-sighted lad from
embarking upon a sailor’s life. The Medical
Profession have long asked this question, the
Shipping and General Press have long urged it,
and what is even more reflecting upon the
criminal ineptitude of the Board of Trade, the
Committee appointed by the Royal Society and
paid out of the public funds for the express
purpose of considering this very subject made it
one of, if not, their most important recommen-
dation. Why should the Board of Trade seek

i5

costly advice and then not act upon it? How long
will the British nation tamely submit to such a
manifestation of wilful perversity ?

Their examiners can produce many such
harrowing cases of a life of promise blasted as
the above ; still the evil is unremedied, although
the means is so easily available.

There is, too, another aspect of the question.
The sight examiners have to test candidates'
knowledge of seamanship and navigation as well,
and the new visual tests appropriate a great deal
of time and entail much clerical work. The
duties of the examiners are thus vastly increased.
The work must be got through, however, and it
is open to question if some section or other of
the examination scheme does not suffer in con-
sequence. On this ground alone, if on no other,
a strong case is made out for expert examination.
It is not the first time, by a long way, that the
Board of Trade have been similarly indicted
upon this same question. The matter is one of
national importance, rather than one which calls
for the intervention of the medical profession
alone. What is to be done to bring the Board
of Trade to its senses ? It is little use interview-
ing the President of the Board of Trade, if like
Mr. Bryce he is content to allow the officials of
his department to continue the time honoured
but criminal policy of refusing amendment. By
such methods we may even do harm, for the
press and public are bound to pay more heed to
his reply than to the statement of our case.
What then is to be done to make the British
nation insist that the Board of Trade shall adopt
a humane, an enlightened, and a less criminally
stupid policy over this important question ?